1.1 [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): The edition of the text used in this analysis is that of C. R. Halladay. It is uncertain whether the text acknowledges its own existence or addresses its boundaries. The writing ascribed in antiquity to Eupolemus is found only in fragments preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. Modern scholarship recognizes five such fragments: (1) Eusebius PE IX.25.4-26.1, with an alternative version in Clement, Stromateis I.23.153.4; (2) Eusebius PE IX.30.1-34.18, a small part of which also appears in Clement, Strom. I.21.130.3; (3) Eusebius PE IX.34.20; (4) Eusebius PE IX.39.1-5; and (5) Clement, Strom. I.21.141.4-5. The first four fragments were apparently derived both by Clement and by Eusebius from the work of Alexander Polyhistor: as for the fifth fragment, scholars are uncertain whether Clement derived it directly from Alexander Polyhistor, or from Ptolemy of Mendes who, in turn, was dependent on Alexander. While it is most probable that these fragments represent a single composition by Eupolemus, this is not absolutely certain: see further 1.1.2. below. This analysis, therefore, must bear in mind (1) the fragmentary nature of the surviving textual evidence; (2) the presence of one intermediary writer, Alexander Polyhistor, in the history of the textual transmission of fragments 1-4, and possibly a second intermediary, Ptolemy of Mendes, in the transmission of fragment 5; and (3) some residual uncertainty about the number of writings under investigation.]

Full profile (Bibliography at the bottom):

1.1 [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): The edition of the text used in this analysis is that of C. R. Halladay. It is uncertain whether the text acknowledges its own existence or addresses its boundaries. The writing ascribed in antiquity to Eupolemus is found only in fragments preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. Modern scholarship recognizes five such fragments: (1) Eusebius PE IX.25.4-26.1, with an alternative version in Clement, Stromateis I.23.153.4; (2) Eusebius PE IX.30.1-34.18, a small part of which also appears in Clement, Strom. I.21.130.3; (3) Eusebius PE IX.34.20; (4) Eusebius PE IX.39.1-5; and (5) Clement, Strom. I.21.141.4-5. The first four fragments were apparently derived both by Clement and by Eusebius from the work of Alexander Polyhistor: as for the fifth fragment, scholars are uncertain whether Clement derived it directly from Alexander Polyhistor, or from Ptolemy of Mendes who, in turn, was dependent on Alexander. While it is most probable that these fragments represent a single composition by Eupolemus, this is not absolutely certain: see further 1.1.2. below. This analysis, therefore, must bear in mind (1) the fragmentary nature of the surviving textual evidence; (2) the presence of one intermediary writer, Alexander Polyhistor, in the history of the textual transmission of fragments 1-4, and possibly a second intermediary, Ptolemy of Mendes, in the transmission of fragment 5; and (3) some residual uncertainty about the number of writings under investigation.]

1.1.1 [The text refers to itself using a genre term, speech act term, verb or other term implying verbal constitution: Neither Clement nor Eusebius provides the naming of a verbal category for text attributed to Eupolemos, about which there is an element of vagueness apparent in fragment 2, Eusebius PE IX.30.1, where we read: "Eupolemus states in something (en tini) about the prophecy of Elijah...". See also 1.1.2.]

1.1.2 [The text speaks of itself as dealing with an overall theme (subject matter) or purpose, or as consisting of coordinated parts making a whole: In fragment 1, Clement (Strom. I.23.153.4) names the subject matter of the text ascribed to Eupolemos as "Concerning the Kings in Judaea", and in fragment 5 (Strom. I.21.141.4) alludes to a statement of Eupolemus made en tei homoiai pragmateiai, "in the similar undertaking/work". This last fragment suggests that the writing of Eupolemos extended in some manner into the Greco-Roman period: see below, 2.5. Eusebius PE IX.30.1, however, apparently attributes to Eupolemus a writing "Concerning the Prophecy of Elijah". No writing with this title is mentioned by any other ancient author; what follows this title has no relevance to Elijah, but might conceivably relate to the time of Eli, giving rise to the suspicion that the text at this point may be corrupt; and the words might reasonably be understood not as the title of a whole work, but as a sub-heading within a larger text. The consensus of scholarship at present inclines to the view that Clement has preserved the original title of Eupolemos' work, namely, "Concerning the Kings in Judaea". This consensus also requires that a writing entitled "Concerning the Jews of Assyria", attributed to Eupolemus by Eusebius PE IX.17.2, be treated as the work of an unknown writer conventionally dubbed Pseudo-Eupolemus and identified as a Samaritan author. On this last matter, there appears to be general scholarly agreement.]

1.1.4 [The text introduces the governing voice, thereby indirectly marking its own boundedness: The fragments do not allow us to speak of the introduction of a governing voice. Eusebius and Clement, relaying information they have gleaned from Alexander Polyhistor (and, in Clement's case, also possibly Ptolemy of Mendes), introduce the reader to Eupolemos who is not, however, the persona speaking in the text.]

2.1 The information conveyed in the text defines the perspective of the governing voice in the following way:

2.1.7 The governing voice (whether first or third person) is anonymous, that is, is not presented as tied to a specific personal identity (or to personhood in general).

2.1.8 The governing voice speaks at no point in the first person (except for any 2.2.4.3) and all persons/objects are mentioned from a third-person perspective: Eusebius PE IX.26.1; IX.30.1; IX.14.20 and Clement, Strom. I.23.153.4; I.21.141.4 indicate that Eupolemos phesin, "said, stated" the information they then convey; but the governing voice of the text which he is said to have authored remains unclear.

2.4 The governing voice defines a horizon of knowledge as shared with the projected addressee by taking for granted the following linguistic usages or references (in selection):

2.4.1 Persons or unique objects referred to by proper name or by technical expression: Proper names for many peoples or ethnic groups are taken for granted: given the limited extent of surviving fragmentary text, this is striking. Names include: Jews, Phoenicians, Greeks, Syrians, Assyrians, Idumaeans, Ammonites, Moabites, Itureans, Nabateans, Nabdeans, Egytians, Tyrians, Sidonians, Medes, and Babylonians.

2.4.1.1 for persons mentioned or presented in narrative usage; as characters; or topics, for example: These are are mostly biblical: Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, David (frequently), Souron (=biblical Hiram), Solomon (frequently), Eli, Nathan, Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar. The curious name Jonacheim is undoubtedly related to the names of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, kings of Judah. Non-biblical personal names are rare. and are explained: Hyperon (Clement, Strom. I.21.130.3), Astibares king of the Medes (PE IX.39.4), and Vaphres, king of Egypt (Clement, ibid., and Eusebius PE IX.30.8).

2.4.1.3 for Gods/mythical figures/supernatural beings, etc., for example: The God of Israel is generally styled "God", twice as theos megistos, "the Greatest God" (Eusebius PE. IX.31.1; 33.1).We hear of Zeus (PE IX.34.18) and Ba'al (PE IX.39.2) alone among foreign deities. There is reference to an angel (PE IX.30.5), whose name "Dianathan" (PE IX.30.6) is otherwise not attested and almost certainly represents a textual corruption.

2.4.1.4 for locations, for example: The number and range of these names, in such a small textual compass, is quite overwhelming: Shiloh, Euphrates, Commagene, Galadene, Tyre, Phoenicia, Jerusalem, Elana, Arabia, Ophir, Red Sea, Judaea, Egypt; the Egyptian nomes qualified as Sethroite (?),Mendesian, Sebennyite, Bousirite, Leontopolite, Athribite (?); Sidon, the Galilee, Samaria, Moab, Ammon, Gilead, Lebanon. Joppa, Tigris, Scythopolis, Babylon, and Hierosolyma as a form of Jerusalem. Many of these are well known from the Bible; others are not, and may help to imply a time-frame for the text: see further 2.5.1.

2.4.1.5 for times or calendar dates (specific to a language or culture), for example: Fragment five (Clement, Strom. I. 21.141.4-5) refers to the fifth year of Demetrius (Soter, 158/157) and the twelfth year of Ptolemy (VIII Euergetes II), though the dates do not coincide. It would appear that the text is aware of some calendrical system, possibly the Seleucid Era calendar. The reference in this fragment to the consulship of Gnaeus Domitius and Asinius is not ceretainly from Eupolemus.

2.4.1.6 for documents, texts, books, etc. (identified through being referred to or quoted), for example: Proper names for documents are given in fragment 2, although it is not clear that thay are taken for granted, since there is no way to determine whether they might not have been supplied by Alexander Polyhistor or Eusebius. They form headings as follows: Letter of Solomon (PE IX, preceding 31.1 and 33.1); Letter of Vaphres a Copy (PE IX, preceding 32.1); Letter of Souron (PE IX, preceding 34.1).

2.4.3 The text as a whole routinely employs the following language(s), knowledge of which is taken for granted: The language of the text is Greek, bearing some similarity to the Greek of the Septuagint. Thus some of the proper names are given in forms found also in LXX (but see further 2.4.3.1.), and certain technical terms associated with the Tabernacle and Temple are found also in LXX. The style of the Greek is far removed from the classical and has been described by Jacoby as "miserable"; and the suggestion is sometimes made that Eupolemus was using Greek as a second language, his first being either Hebrew, or Aramaic, or possibly both.

2.4.3.1 Additional language(s) taken for granted in quoted speech or certain parts of the text are: These may include Hebrew: the words "sheqel" (PE IX.34.17, 20) and "kor" (PE IX.33.1) are employed without explanation. It is possible, however, that these are loan words: see 2.4.4.5. Some of the biblical proper names used are transliterated from the Hebrew (thus not LXX forms of names); and some Hebrew words left in Greek transliteration by LXX are translated into Greek by Eupolemus (presumably). The Persian word "artaba", designating a measure, is also used (PE IX.33.1).

2.4.4 Special linguistic usages occur pervasively or prominently:

2.4.4.1 Technical expressions for a particular subject matter: In respect of the Tabernacle, Temple and their component parts and furnishings.

2.4.4.4 Biblicizing language, such that the text may be assumed to project itself as having a link to texts today known as biblical (see 7.1.4.1): Especially in the descriptions of the materials used for building the Temple of Solomon, its construction, its form, and its inauguration which depend on 1 Kings 5-8 and parallel material in the books of Chronicles.

2.4.4.5 Other special linguistic usages: Here should be noted the possible use of unexplained loan words from the Hebrew, namely "sheqel" (PE IX.34.17, 20) and "kor" (PE IX.33.1); see also 2.4.3.1. The technical term nome (PE IX.32.1), referring to an adminstrative district of Egypt, is also to be regarded as a loan word.

2.5 The text contains deictic or other expressions referring to the governing voice’s time or place, or place it after/before some key event:

2.5.1 as part of the words of the governing voice: In fragment 5, the words "the fifth year of the kingship of Demetrius, in the twelfth year of Ptolemy's rule over Egypt" seem to indicate the time of the governing voice. The date referring to Demetrius (probably, though not certainly) I Soter would be 158/157 BCE. This does not coincide with the twelfth year of Ptolemy (?VIII Euergetes II Physcon?). Attempts to resolve this discrepancy have not produced a generally accepted solution; but most scholars agree that the information places Eupolemus in the mid to second half of the second century BCE. A similar time period might also be suggested by reference to Commagene at PE IX.30.3. Some suggest that divisions of Land of Israel as described belong to times of the Maccabees.

4.1 The text narrates events which are strongly emplotted, making reference to interlocking happenings, characters, motivations, causes, times or locations: The fragments of text which have been transmitted to us appear to consist of "main line" narrative. Both Clement and Eusebius, who have preserved the fragments, appear to treat them and speak of them as narratives.

4.1.1 The text narrates a complex series of events not presented as leading towards only one crisis and solution, nor as contributing to only one person's tale: The narrative is multi-centred, or has several smaller points of conflict. This seems to be borne out by all the fragments, including the smallest. Interconnectedness of events is evident in fragment 2 (the most extensive) and fragment 4. The former relates events in the reign of Solomon, referring back to David's time; the latter tells of happenings in Jeremiah's time. Fragments 1, 3, and 5 are very brief notes of particular historical points.

4.1.4 The narrative foregrounds apparently exact information on the absolute and relative timing of events: All fragments present narrative which claims to provide exact information on timing of events. Fragment 1 sets the origin of the alphabet in Moses' time; fragment 2 begins with a chronology of the time from Moses up to David and Solomon before detailing the latter's dealing with foreign monarchs and events of his reign; fragment 3 gives the total years of Solomon's life and reign; fragment 5 is wholly interested in chronology. A strong chronographical interest pervades the fragments.

4.2 The event sequence is projected as related to the sequence of text parts as follows:

4.2.1 The report sequence mirrors the projected chronological sequence of events mostly or wholly, not precluding 4.2.2–5: Fragment 1 is too small to display event sequence; but all other fragments either display it explicitly or, in the case of fragment 3 on the length of Solomon's life and reign, by implication.

4.3 [The text presents several sets of internally complex episodes with no explicit or manifest causal or motivational nexus between them. Where characters are identical, or linked, they do not figure in one continuous set of events: The nature of the surviving fragments makes it difficult to tell whether the text is an episodic narrative. Fragment 1 on Moses and the alphabet might suggest as much; but the text at our disposal ultimately descends from Alexander Polyhistor, who is known to have summarized and abridged texts he cited.]

4.8 [The text provides scene-setting information, other than the introduction of an I-narration: The fragments of Eupolemus' texts have survived in frames provided by Alexander Polyhistor, Clement, and Eusebius, without which it would be impossible to locate them.]

4.8.1 There is an explicit introduction of the chronological and/or spatial setting of the action: Fragment 2 provides an explicit chronological setting of the action for the reigns of David and Solomon, and fragment 4 for the activities of Jeremiah and Nebuchadnezzar.

4.8.2 There is an explicit introduction of the main character(s): Main characters seem to have been explicitly introduced by Eupolemus, although in the case of Moses in Fragment 1 evidence for such introduction is now provided mainly by Alexander Polyhistor, Clement and Eusebius.

4.9 There is prominent or sustained characterization of key figures in the narrative.

4.9.1 There is editorial comment on the qualities of a character from a third-person narrator: The fragments suggest that Eupolemus offered explicit descriptions of the characters in the narrative, and provided editorial comment upon them. This applies not only to named biblical characters, but also the non-biblical character Vaphres, king of Egypt. The comments which Clement and Eusebius bring to bear upon their quotations of Eupolemus' writing also suggest this.

4.9.2 All characterization is achieved only through reporting the actions, speech or thoughts of the characters ("dramatic"): Characterization is achieved through descriptions of characters' activities and motivations. While direct speech is wholly lacking in the text as preserved, the use of letters, quoted in full, provides strong dramatic characterization at key points in the narrative.

4.9.3 A figure is characterized by her or his moral or religious traits: Fragments 3 and 5 do not include these; but all other fragments portray the moral and religious aspects of the characters involved. Thus Moses is "wise" (fragment 1); David, though sullied with human blood, is guided by an angel to prepare for the Temple and hands the project over to Solomon (PE IX.30.5-8); and the various letters in which Solomon features present him as a devout and upright king. Vaphres describes Solomon as "noble" and the "son of a noble man" (see especially PE IX.32.1; 34.1; and as approved by God (see fragment 2). Jonacheim's wickedness and Jeremiah's piety feature in fragment 4.

4.9.3.1 Moral/religious traits are manifestly linked to the ethnicity and/or gender of the figure: Fragments 1-4 present Moses, David, Solomon, and Jeremiah explicitly as Jews: in fragment 1, it is Moses as a Jew who teaches others the alphabet; Solomon as Jew who builds the splendid and impressive Temple to the "greatest God", who is God of Israel, a Temple prepared for by David; and Jeremiah, sent by God, warns that Babylonians will capture Jerusalem because of Israelite apostasy.

4.9.4 A figure is characterized by her or his intellectual gifts or understanding: Moses is so characterised (fragment 1); and all those engaged in the planning and building of the Temple (fragment 2) have intellectual abilities well above the average! This applies to Souron ( = Hiram) and Vaphres, whose letters offer self-presentation of these characters as possessed of keen understanding in the matter of the Temple, a divinely sanctioned project. Moses, David, Solomon, and Jeremiah seem to derive their abilities and gifts from a supernatural source.

4.10 A character’s relations to her/his community are foregrounded, including any two-fold social environment (e.g. a diaspora setting).

4.10.1 A main character is portrayed as being integrated in one societal environment but as in conflict with a second environment: In fragment 4, Jeremiah is presented as being in conflict with his own people, and is presented by the text as having been perceived by Nebuchadnezzar to be "on his side" in preparing war against Judah with the help of the Medes.

4.10.2 A main character is portrayed as being integrated in two different societal environments: Fragments 1-3 portray the Jewish characters as integrated into the wider world: Moses, David, and Solomon are presented as being at home in both the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds. David is said to have subdued other nations, and a great list of these is given (PE IX.30.3-4), but is also on good terms with the Egyptian kind (PE IX.30.4), an alliance continued by Solomon.

4.11 Supernatural characters appear in the narrative, whether introduced casually, or accounted for elaborately: For example the God of Israel, occasionally referred to as "the greatest God", is taken for granted. The names of two foreign deities, Zeus and Ba`al, are given and not explained. An angelic character, named in the text as Dianathan (a name encountered nowhere else, and probably best accounted for as a textual corruption) is explained and accounted for (PE IX.30.5-6). Furthermore, in fragment 2, God and/or an angel is the instigator of the actions of David and Solomon in respect of the Temple and its building; and in fragment 4 God inspires the prophecy of Jeremiah. The activities attributed to David, Solomon, and Jeremiah (and Nebuchadnezzar and the Medes) are guided by God.

4.12.1 There is extended description of one or more static objects: There is prominent and extensive description of the Temple built by Solomon at PE IX.34.4-15.

4.13 The narrative pace is slowed down or changed by frequent or prominent quotation of speech, thought or text.

4.13.1 The quotation constitutes a plot-driving event in its own right: Differences in pace mark off constitutive parts or divisions of the text. A noticeable feature of fragment 2 is the quotation of four letters, two ascribed to Solomon, one each to Vaphres and Souron ( = Hiram). These slow the narrative pace and heighten expectation, while serving to depict Solomon as a mighty world ruler acting under divine guidance and involving non-Jews in the planning and construction of the sanctuary.

7.1 Narrative or thematic correspondences, or overlap of specific wording, occur between a non-biblical text and one or more biblical texts in a manner that is prominent or pervasive.

7.1.1 Characters correspond between the non-biblical narrative and the narrative of a biblical text or texts: The fragments of Eupolemus' work in their present form share the narrative-chronological ground of biblical stories about characters from Moses to Solomon, and from the time of Jeremiah. From the time of Saul onwards, the author displays knowledge of both the books Samuel-Kings and the two books of Chronicles.

7.1.1.1 Some or all main characters of the text correspond to main characters in a biblical partner text: Main characters are Moses, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, and Jeremiah with Nebuchadnezzar.

7.1.2 Chronology, physical setting or emplotment correspond between the non-biblical narrative and the narrative of a biblical text or texts:

7.1.2.1 The narrative’s chronological and spatial framework, as well as certain events, are co-extensive with that of a biblical partner text, or with some extended part of it: Fragments 2, 3, and 4 clearly make use of the biblical stories about David, Solomon, Jeremiah, and other known biblical characters.

7.1.2.1.2 The narrative is told in more detail than that of a biblical partner text, or contains more components that slow down the narrative pace (4.6, 4.12 or 4.13): Apart from fragments 1 and 5, which are essentially summaries of information, the text ascribed to Eupolemus offers more detailed accounts than the corresponding biblical narratives, with many details not found in the Bible. Some of these details are similar to or identical with details recorded in other known sources, e.g. Jeremiah's concealing of the Ark (PE IX.39.5 and 2 Macc. 2:5); Solomon's age as twelve at his accession (PE IX.30.8 and Sifre Deut. 357; Seder 'Olam Rabbah 14); the "bird scarer" on the Temple (PE IX.34.11 and m. Middot 4:6); and Astibares as King of the Medes (PE IX.39.4 and Ctesias of Cnidus apud Diodorus Siculus II.34.6). [Some details, however, contradict the biblical information. Thus (e.g.) David is presented as son of Saul (PE IX.30.3); the dimensions of the Temple do not correspond to MT or LXX of Kings or Chronicles (PE IX.34.4); and the territories of Israel's united monarchy exceed those given in the Bible (PE IX.30.3-4).]

7.1.2.1.3 The text tends to narrate the story through events described in less detail or through fewer events than a biblical partner text: This may apply to the period from Moses to Saul as set out in PE IX.30.1-2, if Eupolemus is properly represented, and his text has not been abridged at this point by Alexander Polyhistor or Eusebius.

7.1.2.1.4 Some of the narrative’s sub-plots or episodes, mostly corresponding to those of a biblical text, differ from each other in the amount of detail provided if compared to the biblical text.

7.1.2.1.4.1 Among the sub-plots or episodes with more detail are some or all of the ones that have no biblical counterpart.

7.1.4 The text shares features of language with the Hebrew Bible, or exhibits tacit overlap with specific biblical wording, whether narrative or not.

7.1.4.1 There are pervasive biblical linguistic features (vocabulary, morphology or syntax) or a pervasive use of unspecific biblical language, such as generic biblical phrases or single words.

7.1.4.2 The text contains prominently, but not necessarily frequently, the wording of specific biblical passages such as whole sentences or unique biblical phrases, used in a tacit manner. See also 8.1.4.1: The text betrays knowledge of both Hebrew Bible and LXX, and uses both particularly in descriptions of the Temple, its buiding and furniture using language redolent of both Samuel-Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles.

7.1.9 While sharing the basic narrative-chronological framework of biblical texts, the narrative also mentions characters or events which presuppose a potentially quite different framework: This may be if Vaphres the King of Egypt is identified with the Pharaoh Apries mentioned by Herodotus Histories II.161. It may, however, be the case that Vaphres is meant to represent the name Hophra as reported by Jer. 44:30, transcribed by LXX Jer. 51:30 as Ouaphre.

8.1 Standard forms or contents formulated in set phrases, set sentence formats, or clauses in a standard syntactic connection.

8.1.4.1 The expressive use of unmarked biblical wording whose function in the text’s discourse is enhanced or achieved by it being recognised as coming from a Scripture: Note for example the formal description of God "who created heaven and earth" and its introductory "blessed be" formulation (PE IX.34.1); David's "wishing to build a temple for God" (PE IX.30.5 and see Psalm 132); Jeremiah and references to the idol Ba`al (PE IX.19.2) and descriptive phrases relating to Tabernacle and Temple.

8.1.10 List sentence enumerating items by words or phrases: This is not uncommon, given the limited extent of fragments. See PE IX.30.6, 8; 33.1; 34:15, 16, 17; 39.5.

8.1.16 Descriptive sentence of a static (ocular) structure or "scientific" descriptive sentence: Description of the Temple is present, it does not represent short form, but is an extended description. See 4.12.1]

11.2 The text is dominated by the reporting of emplotted events, whether or not in an overarching narrative format (4).

11.2.1 The reported events are those of a biblical past, or of a biblically foretold future: Fragment 5 suggests an interest in post-biblical events as well. The extent of that interest, however, cannot be determined, given the fragmentary text at our disposal.

11.2.2 The reported events are not biblical, but are related to a biblical past/future: The dominant contents of the text relate to the biblical past, supplemented with non-biblical tradition.